CHIDAMBARAM Vs. ARUNACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of 28 cents of land with a shed therein is the revision petitioner. The property, according to the petitioner, was leased out to his father in the year 1100 M. E. His father who was a business man dealing in hardware constructed a shed therein and was using the land and the building for his business. After the death of the father, the petitioner is continuing his business and using the land and godown. In the written statement filed by him, be claimed fixity of tenure under S.13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and also contended that in any event, he was entitled to the right conferred under S.106 of the Act which deals with land leased out for commercial purposes. Issues 5 and 6 relate to the claim put forward by the petitioner that he is a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under the Act Issue No. 7 relates to the claim of the petitioner to the benefits of S.106 of the Act. As per order dated 9-10-74, the Trial Court stayed the proceedings and referred issues Nos. 5 to 7 to the Munsiff Land Tribunal, Quilon for entering findings thereon The above order was confirmed by this Court in CRP. 1472 of 1974. After a chequered process, the records were received by the Special Deputy Collector Land Tribunal, Alleppey. He returned the records to the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum stating that under the notification of the Government in force, he had no authority to fry and dispose of the case. On 30-1-78. the Munsiff issued an order to the following effect:

(2.) The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the Munsiff's order excluding issue No. 7 in the reference to the Land Tribunal is unsustainable in law because under S.125(3), the jurisdiction to decide whether a particular person is a tenant entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act is vested exclusively on the Land Tribunal.

(3.) There is much weight in the contention. The relevant portion of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act reads: